BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" applicable to the controversy in hand is the question which has cropped up for consideration in this matter. Though the pleadings are lengthy and so are the appendages, it would suffice to cull out the broad facts therefrom in this manner :

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Kuldip Bhandari has vehemently urged that this is a case of deliberate violation of the undertakings made before this Court, as otherwise, but for the concessions made in C.W.P. No 136 of 1984, this Court might have opined in its order that the Assistant Registrar had no power to pass any ad-interim order in an election petition restraining the Committee from functioning in the Society. He further maintained that had such an eventuality happened all what followed from the restraint order would have automatically collapsed. He urged with equal vehemence that the same result stood achieved for the petitioners by the undertakings of the Bank given through its Manager. By considering that the interlocutory orders had been withdrawn and fresh elections would take place on 17.2.1984, the same result had inherently followed in treating the proceedings of 21.12.1983 to have been wiped out. As against this, the learned counsel for respondents No. 5 to 8 has maintained that whatever happened on 21.12.1983, that remained beyond challenge and the election of respondents Nos.5 and 6 and the co-option of respondents Nos. 7 and 8 had to be challenged by a regular election petition and not otherwise. It is precisely in answer to such a technical objection that the salutary principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" has been put in the forefront by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) The Supreme Court of India in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal and others, 1963 CrLJ 11, observed that there was no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the Court to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake, and further that the principle was aptly summed up in the maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit."A Full Bench of this Court in Deep Chand and another v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and another,1964 PunLR 318, extended this principle to quasi-judicial tribunals also. Thus, the Assistant Registrar purporting to exercise power under section 56(3) of the Act, while passing an interlocutory order in an election petition, would obviously exercise quasi judicial functions, and if he commits a mistake not only he has the right to correct it but would further have the right to see that the party which has suffered a wrong by his mistake gets restored to the position it would have occupied but for that mistake.